Wind Power and UK Energy Use

[brad465]

Is there any information about why there’s been a sudden uptick this year in electricity demand? Seems to have been a 3.5GW demand increase.

You're probably reading the average for the year so far, which will be higher because we've had the core of winter, but not any of summer, when demand is lower.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there any information about why there’s been a sudden uptick this year in electricity demand? Seems to have been a 3.5GW demand increase.

You're probably reading the average for the year so far, which will be higher because we've had the core of winter, but not any of summer, when demand is lower.

According to the ficures on the Drax Electric Insights website, the average demand for the last month (15 March - 15 April) at 32.36GW is indeed 3.39GW higher thsn the same period last year, which was 28.97GW.

I put this down to three things:

1) It has been significantly colder this last month than the same time last year, almost 0.5C colder, on average. That drives materially more heating demand.

2) We have net imported less, which probably means we have exported more, and that export is treated as demand. Right now we are sending a combined 4.1GW to Scandinavia, Netherlands and Belgium. Ihavent checked but I susepct the colder winter / spring we have had here has also been in the rest of northern europe, hence an increase in our exports to them.

3) Battery storage systems, a lot have come on line in the last 12 months, and this will materialise as demand the charging phase.


The growth in EVs - around half a million extra on the roads in the past year - will have increased average demand by about 0.1GW assuming an above average mileage of 8,000 miles each per year. Essentially nise in the system compared to the above.

 

[Class 317]

According to the ficures on the Drax Electric Insights website, the average demand for the last month (15 March - 15 April) at 32.36GW is indeed 3.39GW higher thsn the same period last year, which was 28.97GW.

I put this down to three things:

1) It has been significantly colder this last month than the same time last year, almost 0.5C colder, on average. That drives materially more heating demand.

2) We have net imported less, which probably means we have exported more, and that export is treated as demand. Right now we are sending a combined 4.1GW to Scandinavia, Netherlands and Belgium. Ihavent checked but I susepct the colder winter / spring we have had here has also been in the rest of northern europe, hence an increase in our exports to them.

3) Battery storage systems, a lot have come on line in the last 12 months, and this will materialise as demand the charging phase.


The growth in EVs - around half a million extra on the roads in the past year - will have increased average demand by about 0.1GW assuming an above average mileage of 8,000 miles each per year. Essentially nise in the system compared to the above.

A colder evening average temperature and additional exports are the biggest factors. People forget that circa 15% if homes are electrically heated.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Looks like Sofia wind farm has started to generate. That's three wind farms on Dogger Bank up and running. Hopefully they should be all running full throttle by the end of the year.
View attachment 202403

Dogger Bank A is running 18mths behind schedule currently from issues with blades causing rework after two failed. They've incorporated that learning into later build and its probable that B site will be fully commissioned before A now as they await availability of heavy lift vessels to return back to the A turbines to remediate.

With all these three sites injecting power into the grid south of the B6 boundary (Scotland<>England) they wont be as exposed to constraints we see now when its windy in Scotland so wind output records will be broken as more turbines are commissioned in this power block.

 

[HSTEd]

Earlier today we had 5200MW of constraint turn-down on the system. Gas generation was running about 7000MW at the time.

I don't think that the programmed HVDC links between the north of Scotland and south of England are anything like sufficient.

 

[brad465]

Earlier today we had 5200MW of constraint turn-down on the system. Gas generation was running about 7000MW at the time.

I don't think that the programmed HVDC links between the north of Scotland and south of England are anything like sufficient.

What's the total capacity of all the links being constructed as part of the National Grid's major upgrade?

 

[HSTEd]

What's the total capacity of all the links being constructed as part of the National Grid's major upgrade?

It's about 4000MW on committed links I believe, to be delivered in several years time.

 

[brad465]

It's about 4000MW on committed links I believe, to be delivered in several years time.

Thanks for confirming, sounds like we need to build some new towns in Scotland/Northern England, and/or reindustrialise on the promise of free energy as means of making use of the otherwise switched off capacity.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks for confirming, sounds like we need to build some new towns in Scotland/Northern England, and/or reindustrialise on the promise of free energy as means of making use of the otherwise switched off capacity.

Whilst generally increasing the use of hydration is unlikely to do a lot in terms of emissions, creating a facility to create green hydration to reduce the need for other sources of hydrogen could be an option.

However I suspect the costs involved in development would likely mean that it was unlikely to be suitable to run only when power was free or negative.

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks for confirming, sounds like we need to build some new towns in Scotland/Northern England, and/or reindustrialise on the promise of free energy as means of making use of the otherwise switched off capacity.

Given that single power line routes are available with capacity approaching or above 10GW, its probably cheaper to fight the population of the Scottish borders and Fife..... even digging a tunnel full of gas insulated lines or superconductors would be better than the status quo!

 

[The Ham]

I wonder if the thing which would help electricity bills would be if the rate was set by not the final unit of power but by the next 1/3rd.

This would mean that instead of units 1 to 100 getting the price of unit 100 they would get:
Units 1 to 33.3 get the rate for unit 33.3
Units 33.3 to 66.7 get the ratefor unit 66.7
Units 66.7 to 100 get the rate for unit 100

At a time when cheap power is being generated for 67% or more of the demand prices would be low, and it would only be as expensive as it currently is if less than 33.2% was being generated by cheap sources.

The providers would likely still get a premium over the rate which was set by their bid, however it would likely be much smaller.

Taking a silly example, if the last unit cost £1,000 and there was a need for 1,000 of them then that would be £1 million.

However, if the 33.3 unit was £200 and the 66.7 unit was £600 and the 100 unit was £1,500 then that would be £0.8 million (even though had prices had increased 50% over the previous model - for example due to a global supply issue).

Based on current unit rates that could allow prices to fall from 30p to 24p.

Given the Oct-Dec 2026 forecast for theprice cap is around £1,864 to £1,880 for typical usage, up from the £1,641 cap set for April-June 2026, such a reduction would put the price cap around £1,500.

Obviously, not knowing likely prices at the cut off points in can't be sure that a reduction of that scale could happen. Although unless there's limited range between unit prices, they're would likely besome savings.

Whilst rhe ideal would be the bid price is the price paid, the above would keep much of the simplicity of the existing system.

By decoupling a lot of the prices from gas it should reduce the cost of energy for everyone (people and businesses), which could only be a good thing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for confirming, sounds like we need to build some new towns in Scotland/Northern England, and/or reindustrialise on the promise of free energy as means of making use of the otherwise switched off capacity.

Or build lots of storage in Scotland.…

 

[Noddy]

It's about 4000MW on committed links I believe, to be delivered in several years time.

4GW is under construction (EGL1 and EGL2). Contracts have been signed for another 4GW, and there are various others at the planning stage. Plus there are various upgrades to existing lines which will produce smaller benefits.

 

[quantinghome]

It's about 4000MW on committed links I believe, to be delivered in several years time.

Open by 2029, and another 6000MW planned.

Edit: Noddy beat me to it!

 

[ainsworth74]

Or build lots of storage in Scotland.…

Why not both?

 

[edwin_m]

BBC article questioning the shift to renewables and suggesting keeping prices down now should be the priority. I have a feeling there is a major hole in the argument but can't quite figure out what it is.

It seems pretty clear that unit for unit generated, renewables are amongst the cheapest sources of electricity. But is there any analysis that compares the current path, including grid upgrades and reserve capacity for when wind or solar isn't generating, against a strategy of keeping/building more gas?

Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero

The question of how important making our electricity clean is to going green is coming under increasing scrutiny

www.bbc.co.uk

Fossil fuels are cheap in part because their price does not reflect the damage they cause - from rising temperatures to impacts on health, property and the natural world. Cutting emissions means bringing those hidden costs into the price of energy. And that has consequences.

"My costs go up, my bills go up and my standard of living goes down," says Sir Dieter. There is, he argues, no easy way around that. "The evidence suggests it is going to be more expensive."

That presents a dilemma for governments. The bet behind today's push for clean power is that countries, like the UK, can show it is possible to decarbonise the grid without imposing unacceptable costs - and in doing so, lead the way for others.

The Office of Budget Responsibility has said "the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to zero." But achieving that requires global emissions cuts.

There is also the argument that getting off gas quicker reduces vulnerability to price shocks. But there is a risk. If the transition here in the UK drives up costs and erodes public support, it will not be a model to follow, but a warning to avoid.

And yet the urgency of cutting emissions is not in doubt. The World Meteorological Organization warns the Earth is now further out of balance than at any time in recorded history, with the planet absorbing far more heat than it can release. As the UN Secretary General António Guterres has put it, "every key climate indicator is flashing red".

If Sir Dieter is right, governments will have to be honest: the transition will cost more.

 

[The Ham]

BBC article questioning the shift to renewables and suggesting keeping prices down now should be the priority. I have a feeling there is a major hole in the argument but can't quite figure out what it is.

It seems pretty clear that unit for unit generated, renewables are amongst the cheapest sources of electricity. But is there any analysis that compares the current path, including grid upgrades and reserve capacity for when wind or solar isn't generating, against a strategy of keeping/building more gas?

Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero

The question of how important making our electricity clean is to going green is coming under increasing scrutiny

www.bbc.co.uk

The article feels like it's questioning renewables at the start, (to the point where those who don't think we should be moving to them would probably agree and potentially read on to see what is said next (heat pumps are expensive, keeping has plants for still cold winter nights, and the like).

However, it then shifts to focusing on reducing costs and how if we can do that then shifting to EV's, ASHP's, and other electrification of what we do then that's only ever going to be a good thing.

It doesn't go where those who may like the negative start (drill, baby, drill) rather it gets to the conclusion that focus on cheaper prices rather than solely on more renewables (although that doesn't preclude them).

Realistically, that means changing the pricing structure (I.e. no more final unit setting the price for all the units). It just doesn't say that, I suspect as there could well be other factors which could help and it's not necessarily the car is one you've made one fix that others aren't also going to help reduce costs.

For example if changing unit pricing reduces prices from 30p to 24p, there's nothing wrong with doing 10 other things to reduce that down to 21p as well.

 

[Olivine]

BBC article questioning the shift to renewables and suggesting keeping prices down now should be the priority. I have a feeling there is a major hole in the argument but can't quite figure out what it is.

It seems pretty clear that unit for unit generated, renewables are amongst the cheapest sources of electricity. But is there any analysis that compares the current path, including grid upgrades and reserve capacity for when wind or solar isn't generating, against a strategy of keeping/building more gas?

Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero

The question of how important making our electricity clean is to going green is coming under increasing scrutiny

www.bbc.co.uk

There’s plenty of errors and unchallenged statements in there by supposed economic experts.

Lots of throwing the baby out with the bathwater too I.e well if we can’t decarbonise lorries and trains and airplanes let’s just give up. The China burning coal and offloading greenhouse gases may have been right ten years ago, but they’re experiencing an exponential rate of growth away from fossil fuels.

 

[JamesT]

There’s plenty of errors and unchallenged statements in there by supposed economic experts.

Lots of throwing the baby out with the bathwater too I.e well if we can’t decarbonise lorries and trains and airplanes let’s just give up. The China burning coal and offloading greenhouse gases may have been right ten years ago, but they’re experiencing an exponential rate of growth away from fossil fuels.

China are still burning coal. They may have massively increased their renewables, but it's barely touched the CO2 emissions.

 

[The Ham]

There’s plenty of errors and unchallenged statements in there by supposed economic experts.

Lots of throwing the baby out with the bathwater too I.e well if we can’t decarbonise lorries and trains and airplanes let’s just give up. The China burning coal and offloading greenhouse gases may have been right ten years ago, but they’re experiencing an exponential rate of growth away from fossil fuels.

Actually in 2025 China's carbon emissions were lower than in 2024 and even the other one people cite (India) saw 0.7% growth down from around 4.5% a few years ago.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2026 ==

China are still burning coal. They may have massively increased their renewables, but it's barely touched the CO2 emissions.

Indeed, however it is starting to see falls (not something which was expected by many even a few years back)

 

[Bald Rick]

China are still burning coal

But it has peaked, 5 years earlier than planned.

 

[HSTEd]

4GW is under construction (EGL1 and EGL2). Contracts have been signed for another 4GW, and there are various others at the planning stage. Plus there are various upgrades to existing lines which will produce smaller benefits.

Given that wind install (offshore and onshore) in Scotland is going up by around ~800MW per year, the projects currently projected from the mid-to-late 2030s are still looking at a mountain to climb, assuming they happen as expected.

EGL 3 and 4 is looking rather shaky given the capacity crunch in offshore HVDC equipment. In any case, the capacity they provide will likely be eaten up about the time EGL1 and 2 gets into service. ie. years before 3 and 4 do.

 

[HighlandStorm]

The BBC article has some valid points - if it is cheaper to run a gas boiler (which produces slightly less than 1 unit of heat for 1 unit of energy in) than a heat pump (which produces multiple units of heat for 1 unit of electricity in) then there is a problem.

It would be more efficient to burn the gas in CCGT power stations to drive electric heat pumps than to directly burn the gas in domestic boilers.

 

[The Ham]

The BBC article has some valid points - if it is cheaper to run a gas boiler (which produces slightly less than 1 unit of heat for 1 unit of energy in) than a heat pump (which produces multiple units of heat for 1 unit of electricity in) then there is a problem.

It would be more efficient to burn the gas in CCGT power stations to drive electric heat pumps than to directly burn the gas in domestic boilers.

Indeed, it's better value for me to export power at 12p than it is to heat my home with free solar, even with gas at 6p as my annual has bill is circa £300 that I spend on gas a year (especially given that chances are solar wouldn't always be providing power when I need it to heat my home).

 

[Trainbike46]

The BBC article has some valid points - if it is cheaper to run a gas boiler (which produces slightly less than 1 unit of heat for 1 unit of energy in) than a heat pump (which produces multiple units of heat for 1 unit of electricity in) then there is a problem.

It would be more efficient to burn the gas in CCGT power stations to drive electric heat pumps than to directly burn the gas in domestic boilers.

The government has partially started to address that with the changes to the pricing that came in on April 1st this year, but it has not been fully addressed.

Part of the issue is the way policy costs are added almost exclusively to electricity unit rates and (mostly) not to gas unit rates. In my view, this has been unfair on people who use electricity for heating for a long time, and it really does require addressing in full now that the aim is to move heating from gas to electricity.

 

[Technologist]

BBC article questioning the shift to renewables and suggesting keeping prices down now should be the priority. I have a feeling there is a major hole in the argument but can't quite figure out what it is.

It seems pretty clear that unit for unit generated, renewables are amongst the cheapest sources of electricity. But is there any analysis that compares the current path, including grid upgrades and reserve capacity for when wind or solar isn't generating, against a strategy of keeping/building more gas?

Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero

The question of how important making our electricity clean is to going green is coming under increasing scrutiny

www.bbc.co.uk

Dieter Helm is pretty credible and you can't say he's anti renewables (he literally wrote a book on the end of fossil fuels).

The argument that the price of electricity is due to the price of gas is not really true, the nominal wholesale price of generation at any given point in time is mostly set by gas, however the wind and solar is mostly on as CFDs which ultimately go through as a fixed cost of generation rather than a variable one. The cost of building a grid that is 2-3 times larger than our max power consumption is also entirely due to renewables and is paid by the consumer, as is the cost of curtailments and of gas and battery back ups.

To hit a near term net zero target we are buying wind and solar at higher prices than are needed and then locking those prices in for 20-30 years. We are also putting polices that are ultimately re-distributive benefits into bills, which is another economic distortion. Sizewell B will deliver power at about £75-80MWh in 2025 money and will cost a relatively small amount in additional grid reinforcement. The RR SMR should cost in the region of £50-60MWh in 2025 money from 2035 onward.

There is also the argument that by making power more expensive we delay the purchase of electrification such as EVs and Heat Pumps those ICE cars or gas boilers could still be in service in 2040-45 whereas delaying sunsetting gas might lock in emissions for an extra 5 years or so.

 

[HSTEd]

The RR SMR should cost in the region of £50-60MWh in 2025 money from 2035 onward.

As a nuclear engineer, those costings are extremely dubious/'optimistic'. It's probably going to be more like £100/MWh, assuming any are built at all (no investment decision has been taken).

But all of this is just a result of an electricity "market" model that might have just about functioned in the fossil era, but is utterly hopeless in a situation where the bulk of generation has negligible (or even negative) marginal cost.

Renewables and nuclear generation act more like "negative loads" than a conventional fossil fueled generator - you save essentially nothing by not taking the electricity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2026 ==

BBC article questioning the shift to renewables and suggesting keeping prices down now should be the priority. I have a feeling there is a major hole in the argument but can't quite figure out what it is.

It seems pretty clear that unit for unit generated, renewables are amongst the cheapest sources of electricity. But is there any analysis that compares the current path, including grid upgrades and reserve capacity for when wind or solar isn't generating, against a strategy of keeping/building more gas?

Why cheap power could matter more than clean power in the push for net zero

The question of how important making our electricity clean is to going green is coming under increasing scrutiny

www.bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately there isn't that much research being conducted on this precise topic.
A lot of the decisions with regard to decarbonisation were taken years or decades ago in a coal dominated grid, and they don't really make that much sense in the situation we now find ourself in.

As an example, I'm honestly not convinced that heat pump retrofit is a particularly sensible way to expend our limited pool of capital and personnel, for example. A world where electricity is outright lower carbon than gas makes some interesting things become true - for example we would achieve a major net reduction emissions if we put heating elements in series with gas boilers to allow electricity at times of oversupply to be used in place of gas. And the capital cost in cash and labour use of that intervention will be much smaller than installing a heat pump in the property.

 

[Class 317]

China are still burning coal. They may have massively increased their renewables, but it's barely touched the CO2 emissions.

China's growth rate of emissions has been falling for a decade and is believed to have peaked in the last couple of years. The compound annual growth rate they are installing renewables and electrifying transport, heating and industry will see a steady and continuous reduction in their emissions at a faster rate than any other big nation.

Yes they are still burning coal and building new coal.power stations but their use of coal as a fuel use declining and has peaked.

 

[SynthD]

however the wind and solar is mostly on as CFDs which ultimately go through as a fixed cost of generation rather than a variable one.

Roughly what percentage is that mostly?

 

[eldomtom2]

Dieter Helm is pretty credible and you can't say he's anti renewables (he literally wrote a book on the end of fossil fuels).

You can say that he's rather renewables-skeptic and thinks that gas should play a role in our energy supply for decades to come.